594, 1000 Godzilla: The Showa-Era Films, 1954-1975

[ntnon]

Some spine numbers are clearly deliberate, others could be, several easily could have been and others... aren't.

For instance:
#167 - Complete Monterey Pop ('67)
#250 for the Cassavetes set.
#500 for the Rossellini War Films, with the box number listed last to make it so.
#555 for Sweet Smell of Success
#666 for The Devil's Backbone
#900 for the Olympics
Dietrich & von Sternberg (1930-1935) spans #930-#935.
#984 for 1984

Any other incredibly obvious ones I over-looked..?


#800 for the return of The Graduate seems deliberate. #833 for Cat People (originally #233) could be.

Maybe #528 was picked for the Silent Sternberg's because 2/3 of them were released in 1928, or #564 for Pale Flower (1964). But other possible date matchups are ignored - One Sings, the Other Doesn't (1977) is #978, for instance.

But on the other hand:
Cleo 5 to 7 could have easily been #57;
39 Steps could have been #39,
Either Samurai or Seal could have been spined as #7,
Richard III could have been #183 & Henry V #85.
Westfront should have been 918.

Threepenny Opera barely missed #403 and Topsy-Turvy should have been #609... (though Alambrista's pre- and post- exclamation marks are topsy-turvy). Riot in Cell Block 11 could have been #711.. though maybe Hard Day's Night is satirically referencing the 24h store..?

The 3 by Malle box could have been hazily tied to #332 or 4 by Varda to 428 for filmmakers' birth years.

Holding 400 Blows, Salo or 8 1/2 for #400, #120 and #805 would have been excessive.. and bringing Young Mr Lincoln forward to #212 may have been difficult, while 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days missed #432 by five-hundred numbers and around a decade.

[tenia]

I'd be wary about linking spine numbers to production year. Criterion are releasing many movies from the 50s and 60s, for instance, some are thus bound to get a spine close or matching (with their last 2 numbers) the production year.

[colinr0380]

By the way if anyone wants an in depth run down of the entire Godzilla series SpaceHunter M has done a wonderful in-depth video on each entry!

[Yaanu]

"This is Spinal Tap" got passed over for Spine #11, if that counts as a missed opportunity.

[Gregory]

Yes, there are many chances Criterion passed up to be annoyingly precious.

[mfunk9786]

Trailer

[FrauBlucher]

Here's the beginning of the reviews....

Destroy All Monsters

[FrauBlucher]

Godzilla vs. The Sea Monster
king Kong vs. Godzilla
Gojira

[Minkin]

Godzilla vs. The Sea Monster

I know the caveats about screen grabs and Tooze's Tooziness, but yikes does the Criterion look bad.

Its weird that I'm so excited and yet so terribly disappointed by this set. I wish they would've spent another year on it and gotten OCNs, all the language variations, and some better extras.

[yoloswegmaster]

Godzilla vs. The Sea Monster

I know the caveats about screen grabs and Tooze's Tooziness, but yikes does the Criterion look bad.

Its weird that I'm so excited and yet so terribly disappointed by this set. I wish they would've spent another year on it and gotten OCNs, all the language variations, and some better extras.

Why would they spend another year getting blocked by Toho?

[mfunk9786]

Wow, I'm pretty amazed at how bad these look

[Big Ben]

I know the caveats about screen grabs and Tooze's Tooziness, but yikes does the Criterion look bad.

Its weird that I'm so excited and yet so terribly disappointed by this set. I wish they would've spent another year on it and gotten OCNs, all the language variations, and some better extras.

My memory must be bad because they look infinitely better than from what I remember them looking like as a child. No it's not perfect...but bad?

Why would they spend another year getting blocked by Toho?

There's also this. Toho isn't exactly...open to suggestion on a lot of things.

[kcota17]

I don't know how much I buy into the excuse that it's all JUST Toho's doing. I believe the stories that they can sometimes be a little irrational, but you mean to tell me that a company Criterion has had a working relationship with for decades now, one that is okay with Americans having pristine editions of some of their flagship Kurosawa or other classic films and one that has let other studios have access to better materials for their Godzilla films, suddenly got hardheaded with Criterion for THIS release and only let them have dated materials and barely any extras??

I'm thinking more realistically, as a bundle together with all 15 films, Too was probably asking for an astronomical amount of money for better quality masters and etc, with Criterion choosing a path that was financially feasible. But the idea that Toho is just suddenly super restrictive with this release sounds a little off.

[tenia]

It's also likely Toho treated their Kurosawa catalogue much better (or allow it to get treated better) than their Gojira ones, and that amongst all those movies, some clearly didn't get enough care.

[Minkin]

I know the caveats about screen grabs and Tooze's Tooziness, but yikes does the Criterion look bad.

Its weird that I'm so excited and yet so terribly disappointed by this set. I wish they would've spent another year on it and gotten OCNs, all the language variations, and some better extras.

My memory must be bad because they look infinitely better than from what I remember them looking like as a child. No it's not perfect...but bad?

Section 23 were apparently able to get a far superior source for their Blu. I want to love this set, but when its a clear step-down for several of the films that were already available on the market ....

I am curious what source Section 23 received. I love these Godzilla films and have been super excited for this set, but clearly Criterion rushed this to get the #1000 spine. Why else would the image quality / availability of dubs - languages / extras suffer?

Does there exist better / restored Blus in Japan? Cause now that Criterion has the US / UK market cornered for the foreseeable future with Godzilla films, there must be some better option available (which could also be a reason why this set is rather poor - as Japan is in Region A and this would likely compete with whatever Toho releases there).

[yoloswegmaster]

I am curious what source Section 23 received. I love these Godzilla films and have been super excited for this set, but clearly Criterion rushed this to get the #1000 spine. Why else would the image quality / availability of dubs - languages / extras suffer?

It's already been confirmed by Jon Mulvaney that the 4K restorations for a couple of the films were off the table and that Toho would only allow Criterion to do "light" restorations on them. The fact that people are blaming Criterion for this and not Toho is insane.

[EddieLarkin]

I am curious what source Section 23 received. I love these Godzilla films and have been super excited for this set, but clearly Criterion rushed this to get the #1000 spine. Why else would the image quality / availability of dubs - languages / extras suffer?

Section 23 licenced Sony's master, based on their own US elements. Criterion went with Toho. Notice at the top of the review the original Japanese credits from Criterion's Blu vs. the import credits on the Section 23 Blu.

Personally, I think the Section 23 Blu looks a bit digital and processed, and it is obviously heavily cropped. The Criterion is disappointingly soft but IMO superior.

[dwk]

I don't know how much I buy into the excuse that it's all JUST Toho's doing. I believe the stories that they can sometimes be a little irrational, but you mean to tell me that a company Criterion has had a working relationship with for decades now, one that is okay with Americans having pristine editions of some of their flagship Kurosawa ...

Dont forget that Toho forced Criterion to remove a before and after restoration demonstration on the initial Seven Samurai DVD because they felt it made them look bad.

But they really do treat Godzilla stuff differently, just look at all the extra legalese they forced Criterion to include on the packaging and the fact that commentaries have to be written out and approved.

I dont doubt that Criterion went into this with plans of treating each title like they treated the original film by creating new masters for them. It wouldn't have been out of their budget, after all they could just raise the price if Toho wanted more money, and Toho had let them do a new scan of the first film.

[movielocke]

Big companies like Toho often have a separate dedicated person/team for signature IPs like Godzilla, think of them as in a different silo entirely from the Toho criterion regularly works with on back catalog films or even Kurasawa.

And within that Godzilla silo there is probably someone who thinks 1) these movies are not “supposed” to look sparkly fresh 2) it’s counter to the brand identity of the legacy IP to have them look flawless 3) fuck your guys, If we ever do want it to look better we will be the ones to release it first, not the Americans.

[ComradeMisato]

Big companies like Toho often have a separate dedicated person/team for signature IPs like Godzilla, think of them as in a different silo entirely from the Toho criterion regularly works with on back catalog films or even Kurasawa.

And within that Godzilla silo there is probably someone who thinks 1) these movies are not “supposed” to look sparkly fresh 2) it’s counter to the brand identity of the legacy IP to have them look flawless 3) fuck your guys, If we ever do want it to look better we will be the ones to release it first, not the Americans.

It's 3. Toho is notoriously paranoid about reverse imports. That's why the ADV DVD of Destroy All Monsters was such garbage. These transfers looking the way they look and being in use over a decade after their creation isn't someone at Toho having a fetish for some kind of lo-fi aesthetic; these films got the treatment they did because it was quick and cheap, and Toho milks what transfers they do make for ages. Hell, I'm pretty sure the DVDs of these films currently sold in Japan still use the same transfers as when they were originally released.

Also, can I just say what a relief it is to finally see a thread where people realize how mediocre these transfers are? The Toho Kingdom thread is full of people who refuse to bootleg insisting that this set is actually brilliant because it's a modest improvement over their 12-year-old DVDs, and the Blu-ray.com thread is... well, it's a thread on Blu-ray.com.

[movielocke]

Friday’s in October TCM is running all the Godzilla films and a few other films, except for King Kong vs Godzilla

[TheRanchHand]

I'm still on preorder at Amazon for the $164. I may hold out to the last day and see if it catches a bit of a price drop but otherwise I may cancel and wait out the next 50% off as I am not in need of an HD Godzilla fest right away. Sometimes the excitement kicks you in the wallet and this set, though good enough for me, is not screaming to buy day 1. I am happy enough with what it is and believe outside of maybe some other supplements they may have been able to have provided, I am sure they were up against the Toho Hassle. I'm keeping most of my old ones as with the exception of DAM and a couple others that might nab a chunk of change on Ebay being OOP, be nice to just have the different dubs and commentaries that pre-exist for the money I'd get for them.

[FrauBlucher]

bluray.com

[tenia]

Svet is trying hard in this one :
"It is true that there is some room for improvement, but all films actually have native density fluctuations that not only will be retained on a new master (4K or 2K), but because of their native qualities will almost certainly be exacerbated. For example, screencapture #7 highlights a drop in density levels with special effects work that will look even rougher on a new master."
So we should actually rejoice that Criterion only got pre-existing HD masters because new restorations would actually make these movies worse looking.

I have no idea what he means by "density fluctuations being retained on a new master" though. What he means by "density fluctuations" usually relates to heterogeneous coarse grain and thick aspect, typical from dated HD masters, but that's precisely what newer restorations would improve on.

[ComradeMisato]

The most obvious ones are on the three films from the third disc where it appears that there is some overexposing of the bottom end of the frame that reveals camera movement/or the reel transitions.

Svet sees a visible editing area and doesn't know what he's looking at, but we should trust and value his opinion on images sourced from film.

Also what kind of absolute layman's take is "Optical processes result in some loss of quality, so when you think about it, isn't it a good thing none of the other shots look very sharp either?"

While he's at it, why doesn't he also complain about old movies having "bad graphics" or lament the fact that the images are letterboxed/pillarboxed and don't fill his entire screen?